Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Messaging and chat control

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 336 posts

Re: Messaging and chat control

#41

Post by toxik »

herbst wrote: post #26
zibzab wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold your horses, put down the pitchforks. You realise the author is a _member of the European Parliament_?? And at least in my corner of EU we vote on who to send to EU parliament. You can vote on whoever you want in the national elections and then vote for the pirate party for the EU seat. Edit: from your comment history I guess you vote far right, which is usually the part of EU pushing hardest for these measures?…

It's still no and far from a direct democracy.

Direct democracy is not a panacea. In fact, it can be quite the opposite. Fair and effective governance is a very difficult thing to achieve, tending either to be subvertible, or totalitarian.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#42

Post by masswerk »

effie wrote: post #13

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

However, the problem is usually the European Council and not the Commission or the Parliament. Meaning, it's still the countries…

Re: Messaging and chat control

#43

Post by herbst »

toxik wrote: post #41
herbst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still no and far from a direct democracy.

Direct democracy is not a panacea. In fact, it can be quite the opposite. Fair and effective governance is a very difficult thing to achieve, tending either to be subvertible, or totalitarian.

Not saying that is not true. Yet living in one of the few direct democracies it is the very best we have in terms of democracy. On a bigger scale liquid democracy may is more interesting.

Edit:// the EU or even the US has shown multiple times that it will act against the majority of they can.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#44

Post by effie »

dTal wrote: post #37
effie wrote: post #13

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

I'm sorry, what country were you from again, that has a human rights record so much cleaner than the EU? It sounds like a lovely place.

This is not substantive. Please read the HN guidelines.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#45

Post by suction »

kristjank wrote: post #3

I think this isn't getting nearly enough traction, especially considering how undemocratic EU's legislative procedures can get. Considering the lack of direct democracy in the European Union, exposure and public protest is the only viable way to oppose this legislature. There's also an ongoing petition against the legislature: https://www.openpetition.eu/petition/online/preserve-eprivac...

The lack of direct democracy in the EU is the only thing that keeps it from becoming the UK.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#46

Post by toxik »

kecupochren wrote: post #24

The news are pretty depressing these last couple of days. We're marching towards very dystopian future.

We have had unprecedented growth and development in the world, it's just that bad news sells more papers. Don't let it bring you down!

Re: Messaging and chat control

#47

Post by argvargc »

czzr wrote: post #7
slickrick216 wrote: post #4

It’s the same people who believe in medical apartheid that are bringing this in. All under the guise of the greater good. Who is it good for because it’s not for the publics. Law enforcement brutality exists online too and all over the world. It’s not simply a US phenomenon. Sickens me that they use children as an excuse. If they really gave a crap about kids there is so much that could be done right now.

Medical apartheid? What’s that referring to?

[flagged]

Re: Messaging and chat control

#48

Post by jokethrowaway »

kleiba wrote: post #6

Privacy is something that people usually only care about on a theoretical level. Practically speaking, they're often happy to not care so much at all if they get something more tangible in return. --- Company: Excuse me, would you mind us profiling you through an accurate survey of most of your everyday purchases? Customer: Heck no! Company: What if we let you collect "points" that will maybe someday safe you a littl…

That's fine. My privacy has a price and I'm happy to sell it when I think it's convenient for me.

What's happening here is that a state actor is forcing providers to let the state spy on me.

That's an authoritarian policy which I strongly oppose.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#49

Post by bkm »

sneak wrote: post #16
cwizou wrote: post #10

Assuming this is correct (I only followed a couple of links, but it would be the EU planning to mandate content scan for CSAM on all e-mail and messaging platforms, after making it legal/optional already to do so earlier this year), I guess this answer the question of why Apple released their tech. While it made little sense on iCloud Photos, they can add the exact same client-side scanning to iMessage and keep it (m…

iMessage has an e2e backdoor on by default in the form of plaintext escrow via iCloud Backup (not e2e). iMessage is, in practice today, no longer e2e. Apple knows this and intentionally preserves this backdoor for the FBI: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZK1CT

Just like WhatsApp 'conveniently' integrated Google Drive backups by default. That is why it's funny to see the fake outrage of WhatsApp's team over this.
Post reply on HN